If the circulation of Nazi ideological clichés has been strictly limited or banned in certain cases, why not apply the same scheme to the radical interpretation of Islam rejected by most Muslims themselves? … By saying that some casual people without a certain face, clan, tribe, convictions, or membership of this or that organization commit something, we, on the one hand, surely try to evade tough questions, not to sow panic, and not to split society… This is all understandable. But if we ignore the problem, it can very easily bury us in five or seven years.

The Archpriest

The Archpriest is of course being diplomatic in his approach, but to further elucidate what he is saying, here is some clarifying definitions: if one were to impose some sort of limitation or proscription on the “radical interpretation” of Islam, one would have to place it upon Islamic fundamentalism. What is radical is what is fundamental, thus why radicalism and fundamentalism are essentially the same. Therefore, if the priest’s desire is ever fulfilled, it will be brought into effect upon the Muslims who have the purest conviction in their religion, and that would be the majority.

This aggression toward Islamic fundamentalism is only an attempt at being judicious in the transition to a suppression of the Islamic religion itself. This is the result of Christian militancy, with the Church Militants on earth vanquishing evil.

What is happening in Russia appears to be a resurgence to the days when Christianity was the religion of the land. I aspire and hope for the spirit that was once embraced and alive in 9th century Christendom, when the Roman commander Petronas, before a battle with the Muslims, ascended Mt. Latros to ask John the Monk for his advice, and the holy man responded:

Go forth and fight the Saracens, my son… You will have God for your vanguard. *